Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ACLU)   Warrantless surveillance: obvious Orwellian fascist evil under Bush, insignificant nit-picking nonissue under Obama...despite quadrupling   (aclu.org ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Orwellian, obama, Jerrold Nadler, foia request, Electronic Privacy Information Center, polices, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Capitol Hill  
•       •       •

525 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2012 at 11:36 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-28 12:59:29 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: It's legal. Today at least. Sorry if you don't like it. I don't either.


Also, the question isn't "is it legal". The question is did Obama say he would put a stop to it.

"No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens," then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) declared in August 2007. "No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."
 
2012-09-28 01:01:37 PM  

imontheinternet: Sen. Perfect (D-Magic Fairyland)


It's spelled Ron Wyden. I have yet to see him ever come down on the authoritarian side of an issue. I've have yet to see him ever come down on the side of the rich over the middle class and poor.
 
2012-09-28 01:02:51 PM  

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: PanicMan: This is the one big issue I have with the Obama administration. They've been terrible with the 4th ammendment.

However, I don't really remember him ever saying he would do anything different.

You don't remember Obama running for office?

"No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens," then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) declared in August 2007. "No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."

It's legal. Today at least. Sorry if you don't like it. I don't either.

It's legal because when the Republicans got caught red handed doing it, the Democrats in charge of Congress worked with Bush to make it legal.

Both sides are bad.

So don't vote for them..


No, it's mostly because an appeals court ruled it's legal when it was challenged in court.
 
2012-09-28 01:02:57 PM  

imontheinternet: GanjSmokr: Pleasantly surprised at the shared unhappiness this has caused here in FARKland...

Completely not surprised at the "B-b-but Romney would do the same thing!!!" comments.


/in a perfect world, we'd actually talk about the PROS of our candidate instead of always talking about the CONS of the opponent...
//Meh. Obviously not a perfect world.  And even less perfect candidates to choose from.

If you find Sen. Perfect (D-Magic Fairyland), who has the name, resources, and connections to win, let everyone know. Until then, I'll play the hand I've been dealt.


Hell, he doesn't even have to be "perfect"... just better than these 2 idiots that we get to "choose" from.

/personally will be voting Gary Johnson
//yes, yes, wasted vote and all that, but I will not vote against my morals again, TYVM.
///voting the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.
 
2012-09-28 01:03:29 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Nobody ever seemed to realize (then or now, for the ones that still use it) that--surprise!--it's the GOVERNMENT who gets to decide what exactly "wrong" is and who is doing it.


Yet everybody realizes that you're going to suddenly make excuses when your favorite team does it.

Just like always.
 
2012-09-28 01:04:23 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: No, it's mostly because an appeals court ruled it's legal when it was challenged in court.


An appeals court applying the changes the Democratic Congress and Bush made.
 
2012-09-28 01:04:27 PM  

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: It's legal. Today at least. Sorry if you don't like it. I don't either.

Also, the question isn't "is it legal". The question is did Obama say he would put a stop to it.

"No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens," then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) declared in August 2007. "No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."


He said he would put a stop to illegal wiretapping. The courts say this is legal.

Again, I think it sucks, but here we are.
 
2012-09-28 01:05:04 PM  

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: crab66: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

[www.jamesjoyce.co.uk image 340x480]

And this again.

The phrase I remember being used most was "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."

yeah, I remember that phrase too. Difference is now I still find it terrible ;)

I always found it disingenuous at best. Nobody ever seemed to realize (then or now, for the ones that still use it) that--surprise!--it's the GOVERNMENT who gets to decide what exactly "wrong" is and who is doing it. I made that point back in 2001 or thereabouts, and was scoffed at, because we all know our government is only tracking ter'rists, gangbangers and other dark-skinned evildoers.


what I find disingenuous is seeing that things have gottten worse under the current administration in this regard and people want to talk about a bullshiat defense they scoffed at when the Act was first passed.
 
2012-09-28 01:05:22 PM  

GanjSmokr: imontheinternet: GanjSmokr: Pleasantly surprised at the shared unhappiness this has caused here in FARKland...

Completely not surprised at the "B-b-but Romney would do the same thing!!!" comments.


/in a perfect world, we'd actually talk about the PROS of our candidate instead of always talking about the CONS of the opponent...
//Meh. Obviously not a perfect world.  And even less perfect candidates to choose from.

If you find Sen. Perfect (D-Magic Fairyland), who has the name, resources, and connections to win, let everyone know. Until then, I'll play the hand I've been dealt.

Hell, he doesn't even have to be "perfect"... just better than these 2 idiots that we get to "choose" from.

/personally will be voting Gary Johnson
//yes, yes, wasted vote and all that, but I will not vote against my morals again, TYVM.
///voting the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.


Yeah, I voted Libertarian once... then Bush won. Learned my farking lesson right quick, I'll tell you that.
 
2012-09-28 01:06:14 PM  

GanjSmokr: imontheinternet: GanjSmokr: Pleasantly surprised at the shared unhappiness this has caused here in FARKland...

Completely not surprised at the "B-b-but Romney would do the same thing!!!" comments.


/in a perfect world, we'd actually talk about the PROS of our candidate instead of always talking about the CONS of the opponent...
//Meh. Obviously not a perfect world.  And even less perfect candidates to choose from.

If you find Sen. Perfect (D-Magic Fairyland), who has the name, resources, and connections to win, let everyone know. Until then, I'll play the hand I've been dealt.

Hell, he doesn't even have to be "perfect"... just better than these 2 idiots that we get to "choose" from.

/personally will be voting Gary Johnson
//yes, yes, wasted vote and all that, but I will not vote against my morals again, TYVM.
///voting the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.


Hypothetically if you live in a swing state, vote Gary Johnson over Obama, and Romney wins that state and the election, starts a war with Iran and starts WW3, will you still feel morally justified?
 
2012-09-28 01:06:43 PM  

HeartBurnKid: GanjSmokr: imontheinternet: GanjSmokr: Pleasantly surprised at the shared unhappiness this has caused here in FARKland...

Completely not surprised at the "B-b-but Romney would do the same thing!!!" comments.


/in a perfect world, we'd actually talk about the PROS of our candidate instead of always talking about the CONS of the opponent...
//Meh. Obviously not a perfect world.  And even less perfect candidates to choose from.

If you find Sen. Perfect (D-Magic Fairyland), who has the name, resources, and connections to win, let everyone know. Until then, I'll play the hand I've been dealt.

Hell, he doesn't even have to be "perfect"... just better than these 2 idiots that we get to "choose" from.

/personally will be voting Gary Johnson
//yes, yes, wasted vote and all that, but I will not vote against my morals again, TYVM.
///voting the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.

Yeah, I voted Libertarian once... then Bush won. Learned my farking lesson right quick, I'll tell you that.


the joy of living in a solidly blue state - I can vote for GJ and not help Romney win ;)
 
2012-09-28 01:07:08 PM  

BullBearMS: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: And destroying the lower and middle classes for the benefit of the wealthy is, too.

So Obama didn't place a millinaire Wall Street defense lawyer in charge of the Department of Justice?

All three of his Chiefs of Staff haven't been bankers?

He didn't put Wall Street's guy in charge of Treasury?

He didn't work to shut down an investigation into Wall Street fraud?

He didn't tell the bankers he was "standing between them and the pitchforks"?

Oh, wait. He did all those things


You're absolutely right, Obama's team is filled with bankers and Wall Street guys. That sucks.

Now, show me one piece of legislation that Obama has initiated that takes money out of the pockets of the middle class and puts it in the pockets of the 1%. Protips: TARP was passed during the Bush administration and ACA will make insurance cheaper for a significant number of working and middle class Americans.
 
2012-09-28 01:11:51 PM  

orlandomagik: GanjSmokr: imontheinternet: GanjSmokr: Pleasantly surprised at the shared unhappiness this has caused here in FARKland...

Completely not surprised at the "B-b-but Romney would do the same thing!!!" comments.


/in a perfect world, we'd actually talk about the PROS of our candidate instead of always talking about the CONS of the opponent...
//Meh. Obviously not a perfect world.  And even less perfect candidates to choose from.

If you find Sen. Perfect (D-Magic Fairyland), who has the name, resources, and connections to win, let everyone know. Until then, I'll play the hand I've been dealt.

Hell, he doesn't even have to be "perfect"... just better than these 2 idiots that we get to "choose" from.

/personally will be voting Gary Johnson
//yes, yes, wasted vote and all that, but I will not vote against my morals again, TYVM.
///voting the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.

Hypothetically if you live in a swing state, vote Gary Johnson over Obama, and Romney wins that state and the election, starts a war with Iran and starts WW3, will you still feel morally justified?


Yes. I will feel morally justified because I actually voted for someone I believe would be better for our country than the two idiots we've been given to "choose" from.

If Obama loses and Romney wins, it won't be my fault - it will be Obama's fault. Why the hell should I sacrifice my morals to pick between a TS and a GD? If Obama wants my vote so bad, he has to actually earn it. Being slightly less of a piece of shiat than the other guy isn't going to cut it anymore for me.

/a "wasted vote" is a vote cast for someone you don't actually believe in, IMHO
 
2012-09-28 01:12:49 PM  

BullBearMS: It's spelled Ron Wyden. I have yet to see him ever come down on the authoritarian side of an issue. I've have yet to see him ever come down on the side of the rich over the middle class and poor.


I wish that were true. I support Wyden 95% of the time (he's my Senator - are you and Oregonian, too?), but he did come out in support of Ryan's medicare plan. He has also been a vocal opponent of single payer.
 
2012-09-28 01:18:34 PM  
Should have the Scary tag
 
2012-09-28 01:20:27 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: BullBearMS: It's spelled Ron Wyden. I have yet to see him ever come down on the authoritarian side of an issue. I've have yet to see him ever come down on the side of the rich over the middle class and poor.

I wish that were true. I support Wyden 95% of the time (he's my Senator - are you and Oregonian, too?), but he did come out in support of Ryan's medicare plan. He has also been a vocal opponent of single payer.


Civil liberties issues are typically the ones I find most important, and Senator Wyden is far and away the leading voice on those issues out of the entire Senate. Especially after we lost Russ Feingold.
 
2012-09-28 01:24:28 PM  

BullBearMS: Senator Wyden is far and away the leading voice on those issues out of the entire Senate.


Agree completely.
 
2012-09-28 01:24:42 PM  

GanjSmokr: If Obama loses and Romney wins, it won't be my fault - it will be Obama's fault. Why the hell should I sacrifice my morals to pick between a TS and a GD? If Obama wants my vote so bad, he has to actually earn it. Being slightly less of a piece of shiat than the other guy isn't going to cut it anymore for me.


Bingo.

One thing is for certain: right now, the Democratic Party is absolutely correct in its assessment that kicking its base is good politics. Why is that? Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders.

In light of that fact, ask yourself this: if you were a Democratic Party official, wouldn't you also ignore - and, when desirable, step on - the people who you know will support you no matter what you do to them? That's what a rational, calculating, self-interested, unprincipled Democratic politician should do: accommodate those factions which need accommodating (because their support is in question), while ignoring or scorning the ones whose support is not in question, either because they will never vote for them (the hard-core right) or will dutifully canvass, raise money, and vote for them no matter what (the Democratic base).


The Democratic party needs to learn to fear betraying it's base.
 
2012-09-28 01:26:38 PM  

GanjSmokr: orlandomagik: GanjSmokr: imontheinternet: GanjSmokr: Pleasantly surprised at the shared unhappiness this has caused here in FARKland...

Completely not surprised at the "B-b-but Romney would do the same thing!!!" comments.


/in a perfect world, we'd actually talk about the PROS of our candidate instead of always talking about the CONS of the opponent...
//Meh. Obviously not a perfect world.  And even less perfect candidates to choose from.

If you find Sen. Perfect (D-Magic Fairyland), who has the name, resources, and connections to win, let everyone know. Until then, I'll play the hand I've been dealt.

Hell, he doesn't even have to be "perfect"... just better than these 2 idiots that we get to "choose" from.

/personally will be voting Gary Johnson
//yes, yes, wasted vote and all that, but I will not vote against my morals again, TYVM.
///voting the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.

Hypothetically if you live in a swing state, vote Gary Johnson over Obama, and Romney wins that state and the election, starts a war with Iran and starts WW3, will you still feel morally justified?

Yes. I will feel morally justified because I actually voted for someone I believe would be better for our country than the two idiots we've been given to "choose" from.

If Obama loses and Romney wins, it won't be my fault - it will be Obama's fault. Why the hell should I sacrifice my morals to pick between a TS and a GD? If Obama wants my vote so bad, he has to actually earn it. Being slightly less of a piece of shiat than the other guy isn't going to cut it anymore for me.

/a "wasted vote" is a vote cast for someone you don't actually believe in, IMHO


I dunno. There's so many "gems" from the johnson platform that seem unsupportable. Repeal Obamacare (state innovations as "replacement"), "cost-benefits" approach to environmental regulation, close the department of education, and this one: "Government should cease subsidizing or giving favorable treatment to Internet service providers and content-creators. 'Net Neutrality' leads to a government role in the Internet that can only lead to unwanted regulation."

How do those sentences make logical sense together? Letting ISPs use public infrastructure as a power play over content creators necessarily gives them favorable treatment. I'll never get why Net Neutrality isn't more of a bipartisan (or potentially tripartisan) thing. Anyway, you're free to disagree, but I I'm fairly certain I agree with Obama on everything except the wiretap issue. So it makes way more sense to vote him and petition him to change his stance (such as he did with gay marriage) than it does to vote in a broken clock for the two times a day that it's right.
 
2012-09-28 01:27:37 PM  

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: crab66: HotWingConspiracy: There was a reason people wanted to prevent them from having these powers in the first place. I recall being told I was supporting terrorism.

[www.jamesjoyce.co.uk image 340x480]

And this again.

The phrase I remember being used most was "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."

yeah, I remember that phrase too. Difference is now I still find it terrible ;)

I always found it disingenuous at best. Nobody ever seemed to realize (then or now, for the ones that still use it) that--surprise!--it's the GOVERNMENT who gets to decide what exactly "wrong" is and who is doing it. I made that point back in 2001 or thereabouts, and was scoffed at, because we all know our government is only tracking ter'rists, gangbangers and other dark-skinned evildoers.

what I find disingenuous is seeing that things have gottten worse under the current administration in this regard and people want to talk about a bullshiat defense they scoffed at when the Act was first passed.


It's gotten worse because the same people enacting this stuff, and allowing the wiretapping have not changed--Congress, the courts and the law enforcement agencies that do it. You act like any application for a warrantless wiretap comes across the President's desk for him to personally sign. I didn't blame Bush personally for all the illegal wiretapping going on then, and I don't blame Obama now--neither President had any way to know about the breadth and depth of the actions.

Warrantless wiretapping exists at all because of the huge gray area created by wireless service. The courts are typically a decade behind technology, and have been since the first wiretapping case, Olmstead v. US (1928). Today, we've got the fact that cell phone communications can be intercepted by anyone with the right equipment. Is that 'wiretapping"? Does the caller have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Those are your markers for whether a wiretap can be illegal or not. And the courts are still not clear as to whether cell phones and other wireless communications have "reasonable privacy"; to the best of my knowledge, there has been no final ruling from the Supreme Court.

If things have "gotten worse" (and I"m not sure they have, only that transparency has gotten better), it's because Congress, the courts, the agencies and the American public still believe warrantless wiretaps are needed for the security of the nation. The President can say "No more wiretaps!" all he wants, but if the people want it and the FBI can justify their actions in court later, then it will be done. And you need only look over at Free Republic to see the kinds of people who want it. Those are the ones pushing for an increase in warrantless wiretapping, they and their Congressmembers. The only thing different is that Obama said, somewhat naively, that he would end warrantless wiretapping in his 2008 campaign. If he hadn't said that--wiretapping would still have increased and things would have proceeded as they have.

Be angry at Obama for other things, but not this. Covert surveillance is not getting worse because of who sits in the Oval Office; it's getting worse because there are certain other people who want to see it done.
 
2012-09-28 01:31:12 PM  

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: No, it's mostly because an appeals court ruled it's legal when it was challenged in court.

An appeals court applying the changes the Democratic Congress and Bush made.


Yes, when the judicial branch, legislative branch and executive branch all agree something is legal, it's legal.

That doesn't mean I like it, or that I think it should be legal. I don't think it's right. But it is legal.

The issues I had with Bush was:
1 He did it at all
2 He did it before it was legal.

The issue I have with Obama is that he's continuing the practice. But he isn't ignoring the law.
 
2012-09-28 01:33:48 PM  

jcb274: There's so many "gems" from the johnson platform that seem unsupportable.


Do you think the bipartisan endless wars are a good idea?

Do you think the bipartisan drug war is a good idea?

Do you think the bipartisan drive to protect the rich from the legal and financial consequences of the fiscal fraud that destroyed our economy is a good idea?

Do you think the bipartisan drive to transform our democracy into an authoritarian regime where people can be tossed into military prisons without a trial is a good idea?

Sorry, but the the things the two parties we have right now are already doing are way more retarded than anything I've heard anyone else propose.
 
2012-09-28 01:36:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: It's gotten worse because the same people enacting this stuff, and allowing the wiretapping have not changed--Congress, the courts and the law enforcement agencies that do it.


It's gotten worse because the obscenely wealthy and powerful got caught red handed doing it, so the law was changed to make their actions legal.

Retroactively legal, mind you.

Something Obama swore he would stop before he locked down the nomination.

Then voted in favor of.
 
2012-09-28 01:39:12 PM  

jcb274: I dunno. There's so many "gems" from the johnson platform that seem unsupportable. Repeal Obamacare (state innovations as "replacement"), "cost-benefits" approach to environmental regulation, close the department of education, and this one: "Government should cease subsidizing or giving favorable treatment to Internet service providers and content-creators. 'Net Neutrality' leads to a government role in the Internet that can only lead to unwanted regulation."

How do those sentences make logical sense together? Letting ISPs use public infrastructure as a power play over content creators necessarily gives them favorable treatment. I'll never get why Net Neutrality isn't more of a bipartisan (or potentially tripartisan) thing. Anyway, you're free to disagree, but I I'm fairly certain I agree with Obama on everything except the wiretap issue. So it makes way more sense to vote him and petition him to change his stance (such as he did with gay marriage) than it does to vote in a broken clock for the two times a day that it's right.


Agreed that Johnson is not perfect either... however, for me, he's better than the others.

I think everyone should take the quiz at http://www.isidewith.com/ (and don't just pick the yes or no responses, go a little deeper). I side 95% with Gary Johnson. ~60% with both Obama and Romney.

I have a hard time justifying voting for someone I agree with on 60% of the issues over someone I apparently agree with on 95% of the issues, even though I realize that Johnson has absolutely no chance of winning.  Like I said earlier, I'm no longer going to vote against my morals.
 
2012-09-28 01:43:29 PM  

BullBearMS: GanjSmokr: If Obama loses and Romney wins, it won't be my fault - it will be Obama's fault. Why the hell should I sacrifice my morals to pick between a TS and a GD? If Obama wants my vote so bad, he has to actually earn it. Being slightly less of a piece of shiat than the other guy isn't going to cut it anymore for me.

Bingo.

One thing is for certain: right now, the Democratic Party is absolutely correct in its assessment that kicking its base is good politics. Why is that? Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders.

In light of that fact, ask yourself this: if you were a Democratic Party official, wouldn't you also ignore - and, when desirable, step on - the people who you know will support you no matter what you do to them? That's what a rational, calculating, self-interested, unprincipled Democratic politician should do: accommodate those factions which need accommodating (because their support is in question), while ignoring or scorning the ones whose support is not in question, either because they will never vote for them (the hard-core right) or will dutifully canvass, raise money, and vote for them no matter what (the Democratic base).

The Democratic party needs to learn to fear betraying it's base.


First off what is TS and GD? I'm unfamiliar with those abbreviations/acronyms, or at least they are escaping me at this moment. 2nd off, as has been repeated in many threads this week and more eloquently stated than i am about to put it, our entire political spectrum has been shifting to the right for some time now. Greater support for democrats and weakening support for republicans will shift this balance to the left. From what ive seen democrats seem to be less "team" oriented compared to republicans, and i predict as this balance shifts left, the more left faction of the dems will splinter and create a new party or take over the democratic party, as the current "moderate" democrats will join the republicans or form a middle/moderate party. To me this would be a great benefit to our country, as we really dont have a "legitimate" left-wing party, but a hard right party and a center-right party.
 
2012-09-28 01:45:15 PM  

PanicMan: Yes, when the judicial branch, legislative branch and executive branch all agree something is legal, it's legal.


How does that excuse Obama's increasing something he promised to put a halt to?

He said we did not need to spy on Americans to stop terrorism. Over and over again.
 
2012-09-28 01:45:57 PM  

orlandomagik: First off what is TS and GD?


Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche
 
2012-09-28 01:51:33 PM  

orlandomagik: First off what is TS and GD?


During a pep rally at South Park Elementary, a group of local PETA eco-terrorists protest the use of a cow as the school's mascot (for "the 47th time"). The school agrees to pick a new mascot, and the students are told to vote for said new mascot. Embarrassed by the bland choices, the kids decide to fill in a joke candidate but disagree as to whether it should be a "giant douche" or a "turd sandwich".

orlandomagik: Greater support for democrats and weakening support for republicans will shift this balance to the left.


Horse shiiat.

Continuing to support the Democrats while they betray the values of their base is the thing that will encourage this shift to continue.

Why should they keep their word when it doesn't cost them anything to break it?
 
2012-09-28 01:53:08 PM  

nevirus: You see, this is legitimate criticism. This isn't "Obama uses a telepromterz" or "Obama a commie Muslin gonna take our guns" or "Obama destroyin' the economy and 'Murica!"

It doesn't help the Republican cause, though, since they're the ones that wrote and passed the law that allows this. This falls along the same lines as the "Obama didn't close Gitmo" criticism. Yeah, he didn't, but YOU built it! Obama hasn't built any more Gitmos or passed any more Patriot Acts, so by that metric he's still better than any Republican.

Someone should call Obama out on this, though. Someone credible.


He did sign the NDAA which included the infamous "indefinite detention" or us citizens without a trial for being somehow linked to terrizm.

Which Obama promised never to enforce.

And the courts have deemed unconstitutional.

which the Obama admin is now suing (for the second time) to keep the provision intact.
 
2012-09-28 02:03:17 PM  
Stop criticizing Obama. This thread is racist.
 
2012-09-28 02:04:19 PM  

St_Francis_P: The revelations underscore the importance of regulating and overseeing the government's surveillance power.

Yes; and no matter who's President, this power can be used, and most likely will. Congress needs to bring the mess under control.


Congress is busy investigating Sandra Fluke's sex life.
 
2012-09-28 02:05:38 PM  

GanjSmokr: orlandomagik: First off what is TS and GD?

Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche


Hahaha wow, how could i overlook the south park reference. I'm ashamed of myself.
 
2012-09-28 02:11:47 PM  
orlandomagik: Greater support for democrats and weakening support for republicans will shift this balance to the left.

Horse shiiat.

Continuing to support the Democrats while they betray the values of their base is the thing that will encourage this shift to continue.

Why should they keep their word when it doesn't cost them anything to break it?

So what do you think would be a more effective way if you are not buying in to what i said above? I think its highly improbabl that a 3rd party will gain enough traction to be viable unless we shift left, or continue going so far right that we approach revolution. And i don;t mean that in a snarky way, I'm genuinely interested in hearing another viewpoint.
 
2012-09-28 02:25:16 PM  

MFL: It's ok when Obama does it because racism.


So, does this mean you'll join me in supporting the ACLU?
 
2012-09-28 02:52:02 PM  

orlandomagik: orlandomagik: Greater support for democrats and weakening support for republicans will shift this balance to the left.

Horse shiiat.

Continuing to support the Democrats while they betray the values of their base is the thing that will encourage this shift to continue.

Why should they keep their word when it doesn't cost them anything to break it?

So what do you think would be a more effective way if you are not buying in to what i said above? I think its highly improbabl that a 3rd party will gain enough traction to be viable unless we shift left, or continue going so far right that we approach revolution. And i don;t mean that in a snarky way, I'm genuinely interested in hearing another viewpoint.


If loosing the support of the base causes the Democratic party to return to it's roots and start standing up for the people, that would be a perfectly acceptable outcome.

If they refuse to return to their roots and continue to sell the people out to the wealthy and support turning our nation into an authoritarian regime where people can be thrown in military prisons without a trial, then they have to go just as much as the Republicans have to go.

One thing's for sure. Given their current behavior, rewarding them with my vote is not an option.

I don't care who you are. If you fought for the illegal, Unconstitutional NDAA, I will never vote you again.
 
2012-09-28 02:52:07 PM  

orlandomagik: orlandomagik: Greater support for democrats and weakening support for republicans will shift this balance to the left.

Horse shiiat.

Continuing to support the Democrats while they betray the values of their base is the thing that will encourage this shift to continue.

Why should they keep their word when it doesn't cost them anything to break it?

So what do you think would be a more effective way if you are not buying in to what i said above? I think its highly improbabl that a 3rd party will gain enough traction to be viable unless we shift left, or continue going so far right that we approach revolution. And i don;t mean that in a snarky way, I'm genuinely interested in hearing another viewpoint.


The Republican party keeps moving to the right faster than the national electorate, leaving the center as easy pickings for Democrats. Will Democratic politicians neglect easy pickings for principles?
 
2012-09-28 02:53:03 PM  

BullBearMS: PanicMan: Yes, when the judicial branch, legislative branch and executive branch all agree something is legal, it's legal.

How does that excuse Obama's increasing something he promised to put a halt to?

He said we did not need to spy on Americans to stop terrorism. Over and over again.


No he didn't. He said we don't need to ILLEGALLY spy on Americans to stop terrorism. This is legal.

Why do you keep lying after posting the quote that ruins your point?
 
2012-09-28 02:58:57 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: PanicMan: Yes, when the judicial branch, legislative branch and executive branch all agree something is legal, it's legal.

How does that excuse Obama's increasing something he promised to put a halt to?

He said we did not need to spy on Americans to stop terrorism. Over and over again.

No he didn't. He said we don't need to ILLEGALLY spy on Americans to stop terrorism. This is legal.

Why do you keep lying after posting the quote that ruins your point?


where did he say that he only opposed it because it was illegal?

Citation Needed

Why did he go on to say it was not needed to protect us from terrorism?
 
2012-09-28 03:05:16 PM  
In 2008, Democrats were eager to draw a contrast with what they then portrayed as Republican excesses in the fight against Al Qaeda. Since then, the Obama administration has in many cases continued the national security policies of its predecessor-and the Democratic Party's 2012 platform highlights this reversal, abandoning much of the substance and all of the bombast of the 2008 platform. Here are a few places where the differences are most glaring:

Indefinite Detention
2008: "To build a freer and safer world, we will lead in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court."

2012: Nothing. The Obama administration has maintained the practice of indefinitely detaining certain suspected terrorists. It has also made use of "proxy detention," by which foreign countries detain US citizens under questionable conditions, although the administration did do away with the Bush-era "black sites."

Warrantless Surveillance/PATRIOT Act
2008: "We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. We will review the current Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war...We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years."

2012: The platform is silent on this issue. This isn't surprising since, at the urging of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats passed up the opportunity to reform the PATRIOT Act when they had a majority in both houses of Congress.

Gitmo
2008: "We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years. With these necessary changes, the attention of the world will be directed where it belongs: on what terrorists have done to us, not on how we treat suspects."

2012: "[W]e are substantially reducing the population at Guantánamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values." In 2009, most Democrats voted against funding to close Gitmo, and there were substantial internal battles within the administration over doing so.

Racial Profiling in Fighting Terrorism
2008: "[W]e will ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, do not become the scapegoats of national security fears."

2012: Nothing. The Obama administration has in fact retained the FBI's Bush-era guidelines allowing race or religion to play some role in investigations.
 
2012-09-28 03:07:44 PM  
Anyone who aspires to get into federal politics is an authoritarian at heart regardless of their political affiliation.
 
2012-09-28 03:12:14 PM  

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: BullBearMS: PanicMan: Yes, when the judicial branch, legislative branch and executive branch all agree something is legal, it's legal.

How does that excuse Obama's increasing something he promised to put a halt to?

He said we did not need to spy on Americans to stop terrorism. Over and over again.

No he didn't. He said we don't need to ILLEGALLY spy on Americans to stop terrorism. This is legal.

Why do you keep lying after posting the quote that ruins your point?

where did he say that he only opposed it because it was illegal?

Citation Needed


Your own quote is completely ruining you on this.

Why did he go on to say it was not needed to protect us from terrorism?

Maybe because legal surveillance is available.
 
2012-09-28 03:14:25 PM  

BullBearMS: In 2008, Democrats were eager to draw a contrast with what they then portrayed as Republican excesses in the fight against Al Qaeda. Since then, the Obama administration has in many cases continued the national security policies of its predecessor-and the Democratic Party's 2012 platform highlights this reversal, abandoning much of the substance and all of the bombast of the 2008 platform. Here are a few places where the differences are most glaring:

Indefinite Detention
2008: "To build a freer and safer world, we will lead in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court."

2012: Nothing. The Obama administration has maintained the practice of indefinitely detaining certain suspected terrorists. It has also made use of "proxy detention," by which foreign countries detain US citizens under questionable conditions, although the administration did do away with the Bush-era "black sites."

Warrantless Surveillance/PATRIOT Act
2008: "We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. We will review the current Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war...We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eigh ...


*shrug*

Those aren't quotes from Obama.

The only one you can come up with is him opposing illegal wiretapping. An appeals court said it's legal.

It's fine if you don't like it, but you're making the wrong case.
 
2012-09-28 03:15:43 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Maybe because legal surveillance is available.


You're a sad, sad joke. Do you think anyone who isn't grasping at straws to pretend Obama never claimed to oppose the Bush excesses is buying your bullshiat?
 
2012-09-28 03:17:11 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Those aren't quotes from Obama.


The official party platform for his campaign isn't from Obama?

You really are a sad, sad joke.
 
2012-09-28 03:30:16 PM  

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: Maybe because legal surveillance is available.

You're a sad, sad joke. Do you think anyone who isn't grasping at straws to pretend Obama never claimed to oppose the Bush excesses is buying your bullshiat?


You've utterly failed at proving what you're attempting to prove and even provided the quote to hang yourself with. Maybe spam the thread with some charts, slap chop. That always works.
 
2012-09-28 03:34:29 PM  

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: Those aren't quotes from Obama.

The official party platform for his campaign isn't from Obama?

You really are a sad, sad joke.


The platform isn't "for his campaign". And based on what went down this year, there is obviously room for disagreement between the campaign and the party platform.

But hey, maybe you can repeat that legal things are illegal because bill of rights.

Now go mine me some more quotes that ruin your arguments.
 
2012-09-28 05:11:18 PM  
I love the disconnect involving this topic.

Just because he can't wave his magic wand and make these disturbing Bush Era threats to our liberties, he's obviously worse. And a monster, apparently.

Seriously, anyone who can't think outside of this kind of derpbox should just stay home next month on Election Day. You're too confused to vote.
 
2012-09-28 06:38:29 PM  
the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979). Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.


Write your congressman.
 
2012-09-28 07:00:59 PM  
SO VOTE REPUBLICAN.
 
2012-09-29 12:00:31 AM  
This is a troll thread dedicated to BullBear MS. Congratulations!
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report